Pages

Friday, February 11, 2011

Here is the video of Bishop Harry Jackson of Maryland complaining about the inclusion of GOProud in CPAC. Personally, I think that as gay rights become more of a mainstream issue (rather than just Democrat or Republican) we will start to see those in the social conservative movement do what he is doing: claiming the mantel of victim hood, and stating that THEY are the ones who are being "thrown under the bus".

My response: Mr. Jackson - these social conservative organizations that have boycotted CPAC did it of their own volition, they "threw themselves under the bus". Since when has the inclusion of another group like GOProud mean that CPAC has started to vilify the Religious Right? For too long the social conservative have been able to have their view go unchallenged in conservatism. Then, once there is animosity or a challenge to their views, it is automatically deemed "persecution".

My message to the social conservatives - If you cant have open and honest debate about the subject, and can only survive as long as your opponents are silenced, you know that you are fighting a losing battle.

7 comments:

I agree with you about the boycott. They did it, they have no right to complain about it. But I'm gay, conservative and I dont agree that we have a "gay rights movement" because I dont think there are any rights that I am denied. Sure, there is a "gay agenda" and people want gay marriage, but as a conservative I know its a want, not a right. But I respectfully suggest the phrase "gay rights movement" is a misnomer that mocks real civil rights abuses. The fact that we are a minority does not automatically make us victims.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that the gay rights movement is not about rights but about wants. I think I know where you are coming from, but if you could clarify, I would appreciate it.

Also, I agree, just because we are a minority does not make us victims - I would turn your attention to one of my posts on this subject...http://anenduringvision.blogspot.com/2010/12/let-us-not-play-victim.html

Like SCOTUS, and most courts, I dont think gay marriage is a right. We dont have a right to make people think homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality when the 6.5 billion people on earth, every one of whom came from heterosexuality, is proof that they are not equal. Therefore gay marriage cannot be a right, so it is a want. Doesn't meant its WRONG or a bad idea, just means its not a right. And I cant think of anything else that's on the gay agenda that's a right, can you?

I have equal rights. There is no need for a gay rights movement. We have achieved equal rights, but it continues nonetheless, because people who are fooled into thinking they are victimized never stop being victims. Its easier to be a victim, than to realize you are equal and accountable for your own success or failure.

Hell, victimhood is how the Democrat party remains a viable party. If it werent for them dividing Americans into groups, and convincing the smaller groups that they are victims, there would BE no Democrat party.

Very subtle, but you committed the Red Herring Fallacy my friend. Lets look at why.

The Red Herring fallacy is defined as,

"This fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. He or she then finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established. By so doing, the arguer purports to have won the argument." - Concise Introduction to Logic 1oth Edition

Your basic premises - about how all of the population comes from heterosexual unions and thus heterosexuality is superior than homosexuality - really has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate. Your premises were not at all discussing gay marriage - in fact they were instead discussing how heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality, something completely different.

Now I realize that you do not take kindly to liberal buzz words such as "equality" or "justice" etc. So instead I will put my reason for gay marriage in more of a conservative light.

As of right now, civil marriage (not religious) is a civil contract between individuals - mostly men and women. To a Conservative, Government should only be allowed to restrict contractual arrangements between parties (no matter what type they are) unless their is a legitimate and pressing societal interest in doing so. If you can give me one reason why there is a legitimate and societal interest in limiting the contractual aspect of marriage to a man and a women, I will see where you are coming from. But, as of right now, from a purely Conservative viewpoint, I see no reason for the government to infringe upon my rights to enter into a willing contract with another person.

You'll have to forgive me, having discussed this topic about a jillion times, one person at a time, I've gotten rather lazy about it and often jump from A to D without first stopping at B and C.

But I promise you, there's no red herring, the nature of heterosexuality has EVERYTHING to do with the gay marriage debate, because marriage is an institution that's entire raison d'etre is to deal with the nature of heterosexuality to begin with -- the fact that babies come from men and women, and often times entirely accidentally.

But let me start by saying I *love* equality, and I *love* justice, and for that matter I love rights -- I just dont like it when liberals use the terms improperly.

Oi. So, where to start...

Your mistake is in saying that marriage is a private contract between two people. Were that true, you'd be absolutely right -- and as far as that goes, that definition of marriage is already available to gays. We can enter into contracts, establish power of attorney, inheritance, combine our finances -- we can hold ceremonies in the presence of family and loved ones -- there are even churches that will officiate.

But marriage is not just a contract between two people. That's where you go wrong. It is a public contract with society as the third party. Society grant's special privileges to married couples in order to encourage and foster it -- you know, all the things gays say they don't get. We subsidize it, we give automatic benefits, we pay social security survivorship benefits, even the private sector grants many privileges, and we place certain expectations on the couple in return. We make it harder for them to walk away from the agreement, both legally and socially (not as much since liberals liberalized and normalized divorce, but still to a degree.)

And society does so for the exact same reason it has always discouraged pre-marital sex, for the exact same reason marriages used to be (and in some cases still are) arranged. All of these societal norms were built up to get men and women married, and tied up in legal knots, hopefully BEFORE any children were born, because children born into wedlock do so much better in life than children born out of it, and society does so much better in return. In short, because dad's cant skip out on their wives and kids as easily when the house and the car and the bank account are in both their names. Indeed, the law would be after him if he did. (cont)

...What is most pertinent, though, is that marriage is not just a contract between two people, but a social contract, an institution.

And from a conservative viewpoint, the ONLY right and proper authority to define the purpose of such an institution is the people, NOT the individuals. The individuals choice lays in whether or not to accept the terms of the institution and enter into it in the first place, as you or I are each free to do...IF we want to marry a person of the opposite sex to ensure that our children are born into the protections of marriage to their natural mother and father.

Potential moms and potential dads tied up in knots before children are born. That is the behavior that marriage exists to encourage and reward. A behavior that gay couples by definition, categorically (as opposed to exceptionally)cannot fulfill.

I could go on, but I think it would only serve to confuse, not clear up; it's an especially difficult issue for gays in particular to get their heads around, because they have equated the debate with civil rights, which is totally and utterly wrong, and because we have been conditioned by television and Hollywood to think that marriage is nothing more than a big romantic award given to people for falling in love.

That's horse poop.

What kind of conservatives would we be if we thought government should take money from single taxpayers and give it to happy couples just as a pat on the head for being in love? Of course there is a more rational. justifiable explanation for marriage, or conservatives would be leading the charge to repeal it!

Marriage exists for the benefit of children, not for the benefit of adults. Adults dont need government to look out for them, they can take care of themselves. Children cant.

Anyway, I want to keep going on, because I know what your next points will be, but I have to stop somewhere.

Quite an elegant argument I must say. Though you will have to realize that I disagree with it, I cannot say that it is not well thought out.

The main points that I disagree with are 1. That marriage is a contract with society (though I see where you are coming from with this one) and 2. That marriage is not for the benefit of adults, and rather for children.

In my opinion, I feel as though you have fallen prey to the idea that marriage is a 'static' institution; when clearly it is not. For hundreds, if not thousands of years, marriage did not exist for the protection of children, and was actually designed as a way to both enter into alliances as well as ensure the transfer of property. Now, has marriage in that regard changed to mean something about the protection of children from "irresponsible pro-creation" - possibly. Does that automatically mean that marriage should stay in that static form? No.

I also take issue with your assertion that marriage is granted privileges in society for the exclusive reason of children. This is the farthest thing from the truth. Marriage not only has beneficial impacts on children, but it also encourages financial stability in a household, psychological stability, and overall happiness. These are things that the government also has the prerogative to support and encourage.

Your point about marriage being more difficult to get out of is also a point that bolsters my argument. Because contract law is murky when it comes to family relationships and how outside contracts affect those, gay couples are NOT protected in their contracts that they may make. Thus, the law must be made to ensure that contracts will be recognized as valid - the most efficient and least intrusive way for government to do this is by allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into the marriage contract.

Your argument is shaky on one more point. I would see where you could be coming from, if it was only heterosexual couples that were raising children. If marriage is for the protection of children exclusively, then those homosexual couples that were raising children should also be allowed to enter into the contract - as it would be beneficial for the children to have married parents.

You might say, what I was meaning was for the children to be raised by their natural parents. To that I would say, sure....that may be the original intent of your argument. But that discounts the reality of todays society - no longer are children just naturally produced in the way that you say that they are.

At the end, I disagree with your argument because I view it as one which assumes that marriage has always been one thing and therefore should always be one thing - aka. static. We may disagree with each other on this point, but I reject this concept and instead believe that marriage is a flowing institution that changes with the society in which it is placed. Culturally relativistic am I - Yes. Conservative in my thinking? Maybe not.